Matter of Richard M. v Princess R.F.
Annotate this CaseDecided on December 20, 2011
Saxe, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, Acosta, Renwick JJ.
6397
[*1]In re Richard M., Petitioner-Respondent,
v
Princess R.F., Respondent-Appellant.
Daniel R. Katz, New York, for appellant.
Karen P. Simmons, The Children's Law Center, Brooklyn (Janet
Neustaetter of counsel), attorney for the child.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Jane Pearl, J.), entered on or about September 2, 2010, which denied respondent's motion to vacate an order of filiation declaring petitioner the father of the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Family Court correctly found that respondent demonstrated neither a reasonable excuse for her failure to appear in court nor a meritorious defense to the petition (Matter of Amirah Nicole A. [Tamika R.], 73 AD3d 428 [2010], lv dismissed 15 NY3d 766 [2010]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: DECEMBER 20, 2011
CLERK
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.